Question: Since R. Shimon argues about Melikah, if so, our Mishnah below (68a) which says that if one did Melikah with the left hand [it is Pasul] is unlike R. Shimon;

You are forced to say that it is like R. Shimon, since the Seifa teaches "or [if he did Melikah] at night, it is not Metamei Begadim while swallowing", and it explains the reason because anything that is Pesulo Kodesh is not Metamei Begadim while swallowing it;

The Gemara explains that since this (Melikah, which is in place of) Shechitah permits the Isur, i.e. Im Alah Lo Yered. This is like R. Shimon;

According to R. Yehudah, if it was slaughtered at night, it descends. He excludes this from "Hi ha'Olah" below (27b)!

Answer #1: That Tana holds like [R. Shimon] in one way (Shechitah at night), and argues with him about one matter (Melikah with the left hand).

Answer #2: (He holds totally like R. Yehudah.) Even R. Yehudah agrees about birds that they do not descend due to [Melikah at] night, since it was Pesulo b'Kodesh. The three exclusions were written only regarding animals.

Question: Below (83b), R. Akiva and R. Yosi ha'Gelili derive from Olah and Kevasim (respectively) that the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is proper for it;

The one (R. Yosi ha'Gelili) who expounds from Kevasim, he disqualified birds more than animals!

Answer: R. Yehudah holds like the one (R. Akiva) who expounds Olah, and not from Kevasim, or from other Drashos there.

Defense (of Version #1, the text of Seforim - Rashbam): Behold, Zerikah, about which it is written only Kehunah, and a Mishnah teaches that if Zerikah was with the left hand, it is Pasul, and R. Shimon does not argue;

Since the Mishnah teaches that all Zevachim, if Kabalah was with the left hand, it is Pasul, all the more so Zerikah, which is the primary Kaparah, and R. Shimon argues only about Kabalah;

If he argued about Zerikah, he should have taught Ko'ach d'Heteira (the extremity of the lenient opinion), that R. Shimon is Machshir Zerikah, and all the more so Kabalah!

Question: This requires investigation, if he can explain the words "a Mishnah teaches, if he did Zerikah with the left hand it is Pasul", for we say below (32a) that if he received with the right hand and passed it to the left hand, he returns it to the right hand. This is because Zerikah needs the right hand;

If it were due to Holachah, what is the reason [to require the right hand]? It is not written "Etzba". Why is it Pasul?

Further, R. Shimon should have argued and been Machshir because it is Avodah that he can be Mevatel (he can slaughter at the Mizbe'ach, and no Holachah is needed)!

Answer #1: Perhaps he says that l'Chatchilah, he returns it to the right hand, lest he do Zerikah with the left hand, but b'Di'eved, if he did Zerikah with the left hand, it is Kosher.

Answer #2: Also due to Holachah he said that l'Chatchilah, he returns it to the right hand, but b'Di'eved, it is Kosher.

Answer #3: [The Mishnah] discusses a Chatas. R. Shimon agrees that it requires the right hand for Zerikah.

Question: Since we learn Etzba of Chatas through a Gezeirah Shavah from Etzba of Metzora that it is the right [thumb], how do we learn other Korbanos from Chatas through the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah?

Amora'im argue below (50a) about whether or not something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can return to teach through a Hekesh!

Answer #1: Due to this, all the more so it is better than here. We ask as follows. Etzba is not written regarding Zerikah, and R. Shimon does not argue, even though he expounds the right from the Hekesh of Chatas;

This is fine according to the opinion that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can return to teach through a Hekesh. However, according to the opinion that it cannot return to teach through a Hekesh, why doesn't R. Shimon argue?

Consequence: In Chulin (22a), [the Gemara] answers "he holds like R. Shimon, that Kehunah requires Etzba." This is like the opinion that it returns to teach through a Hekesh;

However, R. Shimon, who in a Beraisa here is Machshir the left hand in Zerikah, he does not want to learn the right hand through the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah from Chatas, for he holds that we do not learn Zerikah from Haza'ah;

The other answer given in Menachos (83a) that it was taught needlessly, is like the opinion that it does not return to teach through a Hekesh.

Observation: However, in Chulin (22a) it does not give the answer that it was taught needlessly, but below (98a) it gives both answers.

Answer #2: However, it is possible that here, all agree that it returns to teach through a Hekesh, since the first Melamed (source), i.e. a Metzora, is Chulin (according to the opinion that it depends on the Melamed. Devar Moshe brings that the Griz asks why Metzora is considered Chulin. If the Matanos on the Behonos are Pasul, he brings another Korban!)

We need this answer below, that he expounds "if [the Kohen] wants to offer [the Kometz] in his hand, he uses his right hand, like a Chatas." This is a Hekesh, and Chatas itself we learned from a Gezeirah Shavah to Metzora!

Question: What was the question "regarding Zerikah it does not say Etzba, only Kehunah, and it is Pasul, and R. Shimon does not argue?"

We could have asked also from the first Tana, why he disqualifies, for regarding Chatas he needs [to learn from] Etzba, in the Beraisa (24a), like it says "b'Etzba'o" [and] "v'Lakach"!

[The Gemara] also said that the first Tana holds that the verse is expounded Lefanav. (B'Etzba'o teaches about Kabalah, which is written earlier in the verse, and not about Zerikah, which is later in the verse.) However, he does not learn from Kehunah;

Summation of question: If Zerikah with the left hand is Pasul in other Korbanos, from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah, what was the question against R. Shimon?

Answer: [The Makshan] did not want to ask from Rabanan, because one could answer that Rabanan's reason is not because we expound Etzba Lefanav. The Beraisa that taught b'Etzba'o v'Lakach, it said so according to R. Shimon;

The reason why Rabanan disqualify the left hand for Kabalah is because it says "v'Lakach ha'Kohen Min ha'Dam", and Rabanan hold that Kehunah does not require Etzba.

Support: It connotes like this below (98a). It asks "we know the right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah (whenever it says 'Etzba' and 'Kehunah'...)", and answers that the right hand was taught needlessly (we know it from Rabah bar bar Chanah, and not from the Hekesh). Alternatively, (the Tana) holds like R. Shimon, who says that 'Kehunah' requires 'Etzba' [to obligate the right hand, but 'Etzba' by itself does not];

Inference: According to Rabanan, Kehunah does not require Etzba. Therefore, we needed to say that [according to them] the right hand was taught needlessly, for "Kohen" written in other Korbanos regarding Zerikah connotes the right hand, and we need not learn from Etzba of Chatas. This is from R. Baruch.

Implied question: Why don't we ask that a sharp knife cut the verse? (I.e. what is the source to take the Mem from "mi'Dam" and prefix it to "ha'Par"?)

Answer: We ask so only when we remove one [entire] word [and put it elsewhere], like in Bava Basra (111b).

Question: We exclude blood of the knife. All the more so we know that blood from [what spilled from the animal to] the floor [is excluded]!

Note: Keren Orah asks what is Tosfos' question? One exclusion excludes both of these! Bi'urei ha'Daf answers that we expound "meha'Par" to exclude from the floor, and '"mi'Dam ha'Par", and not Dam ha'Par and something else' excludes blood of the knife.

Answer: Perhaps blood of the knife is worse (than blood of the floor, which was not received at all), because it was received in a Pasul way.

(Do not say that the Torah needed to exclude only from the floor.) Alternatively, if we did not detract (from a word) and add (to another word), one might have thought that '"mi'Dam ha'Par", and not Dam ha'Par and something else' excludes blood from the floor, but blood from the knife is fine.

Explanation (Rashi): [He cleans the knife] on the brim of the bucket on the outside, so [blood from the knife] will not fall into the bucket. If it would, this is [blood of] something else.

Implied question: Regarding Haza'ah of Parah Adumah, we say that when he finished sprinkling, he cleaned his hand on the Parah itself (Menachos 7b)!

Answer: Here he does not clean the knife on the cow (Korban) itself, for then the knife would be full of hairs, and it would not be nice to slaughter more with it.

Implied question: However, in that Sugya itself, regarding Parah, we say "it is fine that he cleans his hand on the Parah itself. However, on what does he clean his finger?" (The Parah was far away. Alternatively if he would clean it on the Parah itself, his finger would be full of hairs.)

Abaye answered [that he cleans it] on the brim of the bucket. Also his hand he should clean on the brim of the bucket!

Answer #1: [He cleans his hand on the Parah itself] because he needs to burn all of the blood. However, he could not clean his finger on the Parah itself, for he sprinkled on Har ha'Mishchah, facing the Ohel Mo'ed. Between every Haza'ah and Haza'ah, will he descend from the mountain to clean his hands on the Parah itself?!

Note: Seemingly, between Haza'os he needed to clean only his finger. However, if he would clean on the Parah, it would be better to clean the entire hand on it, than on the outer brim of the bucket (not on the inner, lest blood that initially remained on his finger enter the bucket and he will sprinkle from it again), and later he must clean the brim on the cow, to burn all the blood. Perhaps Tosfos says "hands", in case blood happened to come on both hands. Shitah Mekubetzes (Defus Vilna) is Magia "Yado".

Answer #2: Rashi explained below (93b, that he could not clean it on the Parah itself), lest his finger get dirty with hairs between Haza'os.

Support #1: We are concerned for hairs like this in Shabbos (116b) regarding flaying the Pesach until the chest [before taking out the Eimurim].

Support #2: Its Shechitah and Haza'ah are in one place, like it says below (113a. Therefore, Answer #1 is difficult.)

Also, in Midos (35a) a Mishnah teaches that all the walls [in the Mikdash] were 20 Amos tall, except for the eastern wall, for the Kohen who burns the Parah sees the opening of the Heichal at the time of Haza'ah. (Chok ha'Kodesh, citing the Grid - what is the proof from there? Perhaps Shechitah was below, and the Kohen ascended to do Haza'ah! However, below (113a) it says that also at the time of Shechitah, he must face Pesach Ohel Mo'ed.)

Observation: From here we could have resolved [R. Asi's question] above.

Question: This requires investigation below (87b) regarding the airspace of the ramp is like the ramp. (Why didn't we resolve it from here? Kehilas Yakov points out that here we discuss when it is destined to fall in the Kli!)

Question: Above (25a), regarding "mi'Dam ha'Par", and not from blood of the hide, we did not ask what is the source for Kodshim Kalim!

Answer: Since the Torah revealed here (that all Kodshim have the same law), the same applies there.